Michelle Le
Fredrickson
Writing 2
23 April 2018
Exploring Rhetoric in Kaur's Poetry and Emma Watson's HeForShe Speech
In an age of prolific globalization, the accessibility and propagation of ideas, intellect, and aspirations becomes increasingly easier by the hour. But within this realm of cosmic communication, some works stand to be far more powerful and influential than others. Some move the masses, whereas other lag behind and remain as stagnated strings of words stuck in history. Generally speaking, words seek to persuade, to relate, or to connect to an audience; so what gives some works a foothold over others? The 21st century is bursting at the seams of many movements, in the name of empowerment, equality, and humanity. While in two entirely different genres of dissertations, Rupi Kaur's contemporary poetic compositions and Emma Watson's HeForShe speech to the UN exploits the strength of recognition and simplicity in the structure of their discourse in order to assimilate themes of feminism, equality, and resilience into society.
Due to the nature and formality of the different genres, Watson's and Kaur's works exhibit distinctly different structures in their pieces, both in syntax and form, yet the work of both these individuals effectively and deliberately deliver messages of resilience and empowerment.
Through the exploitation of media platforms made accessible by the 21st century, Kaur was able to entice a large audience from all corners of the world. Coined as "instapoetry", this contemporary genre of poetry exploits the pervasive nature of the today's mechanism of networking through the social media platform, Instagram. Most notably, Rupi Kaur's quick but strongly purposeful verses on feminism, resilience, and heartbreak have fueled the drive towards this novel form of poetic expression in the new age that embraces themes of empowerment and the elements of candor, vulnerability, and abstracity. Instapoems suit the fleeting nature of a single post, those of which are meant to be scrolled past by half an inch of an upward swipe. Being so, the works have the quality of soundbytes; concise yet purposeful. Some have taken the effort to parody Kaur's distinctively short pieces, publishing excerpts along the lines of: "I was orange juice/but he didn't drink it" but nevertheless, Kaur's pieces deliver loads of meaning and her work persists to be an indomitably substantive force to her 2.5 million followers on Instagram. The cursory disposition of the compositions yields bridged and choppy rhythms to the streams of consciousness that Kaur spills into her writing. Instapoetry lacks the structural complexity observed in many other forms of communication. The sparing and bridged style of expression has little room for a multiplex structure; there are simply breaks or new lines where a figurative breath is taken for a shift in thought. The tone of the pieces takes after their disjuncted form, very conversational and informal; as shown through the more often than not lowercase letters and rhythmic spacing between the words and letters. This leaves room for a sense of greater accessibility and acquiescence in the audience in the sense that the colloquial approach yields a less intimidating manifestation.
On the other hand, Emma Watson's speech on behalf of the UN Women's Goodwill took upon more of a developed, narrative-based approach. As opposed to the disjointed streams of consciousness in Kaur's poetic compositions, Watson's speech was more formulaic and built off of each following word. The speech flows and alternates from personal anecdotes, to generalized observations, to establishing credibility, and to historical evidence. She recalls,
"I started questioning gender-based assumptions when at eight I was confused at being called "bossy," because I wanted to direct the plays we would put on for our parents-but the boys were not.
When at 14 I started being sexualized by certain elements of the press.
When at 15 my girlfriends started dropping out of their sports teams because they didn't want to appear "muscly."
When at 18 my male friends were unable to express their feelings." (Watson)
Watson utilizes repetition to emphasize her thoughts and amass attention; this tactic is not only used in her personal anecdotes but also in statements that included the larger general population. By repeating "when at", Watson demonstrates the repeated amount of times in which she felt preyed upon by the state of ideological norms within society; she cites instances that not only affected herself directly, but she also cites instances that affected her friends. This makes a significant impact in her discourse because it establishes more ethos and it gives off the image that she is not solely in this fight for her own wants. Additionally, in allusion to Hillary Clinton's speech about women's rights in 1995, Watson deplores how many of the changes in social equality Clinton strove to change over a decade ago are still a reality to date. This engages a greater sense of urgency in her movement. She employs material words such as "imprisoned" and "tangible" to emphasize the legitimacy and reality of the issue at hand. The choice in diction speaks tremendously to the audience; Watson doesn't choose to be excessively ornate, and inevitably incomprehensible to the general public in that manner, but rather she chooses to use conversational language that could be easily understood by the general population, including some words of slang like "muscly" and "macho". Through anecdotal observations and historical references, Watson imparts a narrative about the past, the present, and the future; the personal experiences about herself and others makes her more appealing to the audience by evoking pathos, and by referencing to historical precedent and her past observations, she establishes a greater sense of logos and ethos.
Largely in appeal to pathos, Kaur and Watson ironically harmonize the schism in political climate through their respective forms of communication by establishing a sentiment of unity and recognition within their work in contrast to resorting towards victimization or assigning blame.
Kaur's themes of vulnerability, love, heartbreak, and feminine empowerment, which are expressed in blunt, glaringly observational, and, quite frankly, plain language enable readers to grasp a sense of acknowledgement and furthermore relate their own circumstances to Kaur's experiences and thoughts. In a sense, Kaur's pieces are very superficial, in that her accounts of marginalization and anguish simply state the obvious. For instance, some of her most liked pieces on Instagram:
– and here you are living/despite it all
– do you need me or/do you need someone/there is a difference
– do not bother holding on to/that thing that does not want you
These pieces are all words that most likely have run through the minds of many, however, they were never materialized. Most importantly, Kaur's bluntness on the nature of her topics does not victimize or attack the audience, rather it allows of sense of recognition to be formed, which makes her work all the more appealing to an increasingly solipsistic society. Even further, the ambiguity and deconstructivity of her compositions open the potential for relatability to an even greater audience.
Similarly, Watson's stance on gender equality hinges on the force of recognition and unity. Watson begins her speech on the behalf of her mission at the UN by pleading to the people, "I am reaching out to you because I need your help. We want to end gender inequality-and to do that we need everyone to be involved". Not only at the beginning but also throughout the entirety of Watson's speech is a string of directive words like "you" and "your" to indicate that those listening and reading matter, and of words of inclusivity like "we, "both" and "everyone" to generate a sense of solidarity. Most eminently, Watson carries issues of feminine belittlement and gender inequality to awareness through anecdotes and historical accounts while also making a point to recognize the perspective and struggles of a man as well. In doing so, she provides concrete evidence of her claim of inequality while also circumventing the alienation of potentially half the portion of her audience. In her speech, she directly addresses men, "Men-I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue too". No individual wants to feel like their ideas, much less the biological essence of their existence, are being discredited or seen as diminutive. By deliberately addressing women and men on the issue of inequality, she establishes credibility in being unbiased and appeals to both sides. Furthermore, Watson establishes herself as another individual of the masses to avoid disaffecting other portions of her audience. She comes from a standpoint of another human, a human trying to make a change, rather than someone who is in any way, shape, or form superior than another. Watson's speech seeks to garner the efforts of females and males alike, and in effort to do so, she employs methods of firstly presenting the issue, recognizing both sides of the issue, and proposing a solution that requires the attention and collaboration of both sides in order to appeal to pathos.
While Watson's and Kaur's writing can be viewed as two opposite ends of a spectrum, both effectively communicate their message clearly on their respective platforms. It would be difficult, and ultimately unproductive, to post a 13 minute speech on Instagram, a social media platform of 2×2 squares; keeping the audience in mind, there would be a slim ratio of consumers who would sit through a post of that lengthy of a duration when it was meant to only be 7 seconds long. Likewise, it would be out of convention to give a formal speech addressed to the people on behalf of the United Nations in the fragmented style that Kaur exhibits in her work, in that it would discredit the seriousness of the matter and wouldn't deliver the message as effectively to the audience. Although Kaur's work consumes less than a minute's worth of time to digest and Watson's speech lasted over 13 minutes, both effectively delivered their messages by relying heavily on acknowledging the obvious, or in other words by depending on large aspects of their compositions to appeal to pathos. Kaur's work is not revolutionary in the sense that it stimulates new perspectives to be formed; the revolution in Kaur's verses is rather the relatability of her words. Her words on marginalization may connect to some, her words on abuse may connect to another, her words on female empowerment may connect to others, her words on heartbreak and fortitude may connect to even more. Watson's speech served to connect on a level of universality, her speech seeked to garner new perspectives and actions through her observations of the inequalities. Both encompassed the overarching utilization of inclusivity and recognition. One demonstrated how ambiguity could reach an audience by being able to tailor to the ideologies and experiences of many. The other demonstrated how specificity could reach an audience by using experiences as concrete examples of the issue. **how individual forms of rhetoric appealed to pathos and the masses*
The effectiveness and potency of any expression of opinion largely depends on the acknowledgement of audience. Kaur's and Watson's assertions on empowerment were intended for different audiences. One banked on the qualities of instant gratification on a social media platform whereas the other relied on the adhesivity and empathy of humanity. Each had specific writing conventions that they applied to their respective disciplines, and through the use of various rhetorical techniques such as rhythm, the three modes of persuasion (ethos, pathos, logos), anecdotes, and choice in diction, Kaur and Watson were able to connect to their audience cogently.
Works Cited
"Emma Watson: Gender Equality Is Your Issue Too." United Nations Women, 20 Sept. 2014,
www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2014/9/emma-watson-gender-equality-is-your-issue- too.
Kaur, Rupi, @rupikaur_, Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/rupikaur_/?hl=en